K KRISHNAMURTHY vs M/o Information And Broadcasting

1 OA/310/01288/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01288/2018
th
Dated this the 27 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
K. Krishnamurthy,
S/o M. Karuppan,
No.4, Ground Floor,
Srinivas Apartments,
st
8 & 10, Sankarapuram 1 Street,
Choolaimedu, Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. P. Rajendran
Vs
1. Union of India
rep by The Senior Administrative Officer,
Central Board of Film Certification,
Mumbai.
2. The Regional Officer,
Central Board of Film Certification,
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai, .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC

2 OA/310/01288/2018
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the
following relief:
“To call for the records relating to the impugned
order of the first respondent in C-18013/1/2018-
Admn dated 16.02.2018 and quash the same and
direct the respondents to re-fix the pay of the
Applicant by granting first financial upgradation
under the ACP Scheme and second and third
financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme by
duly protecting his pay as prayed for in his
representation dated 9.3.2015 and grant him all
consequential benefits including refund of the
amounts recovered from him and render Justice”.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the OA
are as follows:
The Applicant was appointed as Assistant Editor in the Films
Division, Mumbai, on 15.09.1979. He was subsequently selected and
appointed as Editor in the Films Division, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, Government of India, on 19.10.1981. By order
dated 04.09.1982, he was selected for appointment as Film Editor in
the Central Board of Film Censors on deputation for one year.
Pursuant thereto, he was transferred to the Central Board of Film
Certification, Chennai, by order dated 27.07.1983, and joined duty on

3 OA/310/01288/2018
06.08.1983. He was appointed in a quasi-permanent capacity as
Editor with effect from 19.10.1984. Despite the expiry of his
deputation period, he was neither absorbed nor repatriated to the
Films Division and continued to serve in Chennai until his permanent
absorption with effect from 22.12.1994. He retired as Film Editor on
31.05.2014. The Applicant contends that he stagnated in the post of
Editor from 19.10.1981 and was not granted financial upgradation
under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, effective from
09.08.1999. Subsequently, after the Modified Assured Career
Progression (MACP) Scheme came into effect on 01.09.2008, he was
granted the first, second and third MACP benefits only by order dated
24.04.2015, after his retirement, resulting in monetary loss. Despite
repeated representations regarding pay fixation and the grant of
ACP/MACP benefits, including a detailed representation dated
09.03.2015 enclosing the relevant rules and documents, the
Respondents, by reply dated 17.03.2016, stated that the first ACP had
not been granted due to administrative reasons and that the three
MACP benefits had subsequently been sanctioned by order dated
24.04.2015. Aggrieved by the delay and denial of his claim, the
Applicant filed O.A. No. 26/2018 before this Tribunal. By order dated

4 OA/310/01288/2018
05.01.2018, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to consider his
representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within two
months of receiving a copy of the order. However, the Respondents
rejected his claim by a cryptic and non-speaking order dated
16.02.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has filed the present
Original Application.
3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the
Applicant is that the reason assigned by the first Respondent in the
impugned order for denying financial upgradation under the ACP
Scheme is unreasonable, arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The
impugned order merely states that no monetary loss was caused to the
Applicant, without addressing the substance of his claim. It is an
undisputed fact that the Applicant submitted a detailed representation
dated 09.03.2015, relying on relevant Office Memoranda and
Fundamental Rules governing pay fixation and explaining the manner
in which his pay ought to have been fixed. This Tribunal, taking note
of the said representation, specifically directed the first Respondent to
consider the Applicant’s claim and pass a reasoned and speaking
order. However, the first Respondent failed to examine or address the

5 OA/310/01288/2018
relevant rules and contentions raised by the Applicant, thereby
rendering the impugned order contrary to the Tribunal’s directions.
4. The learned counsel further contended that the Applicant’s
lawful entitlement to pay and allowances constitutes property
protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and cannot
be denied except in accordance with law. Such a valuable
constitutional right cannot be defeated by a mere assertion that no
monetary loss was caused, particularly when the Applicant’s claim for
proper pay fixation has not been adjudicated on its merits. The
Respondents have neither disclosed nor explained the alleged
administrative reasons for denying the first ACP benefit. The
impugned order, having been passed mechanically and arbitrarily
without due consideration of the relevant rules and the Applicant’s
submissions, is therefore liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that, during the
Applicant’s deputation from the Films Division to the Central Board
of Film Censors, he was entitled to the pay scale applicable to the
post of Film Editor in his parent department until his permanent

6 OA/310/01288/2018
absorption in the borrowing department. Upon such absorption, his
pay ought to have been re-fixed in accordance with the applicable
rules, duly protecting his existing pay. The Applicant’s representation
dated 09.03.2015 sets out in detail the basis for the claimed pay
fixation, supported by the relevant rules and official memoranda.
Since the claim is substantiated by the applicable provisions
governing pay fixation, the learned counsel submitted that the
Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the present Original
Application.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently
opposed the Applicant’s contentions, primarily relying on the grounds
of limitation and the averments made in the reply statement. He
submitted that the Applicant was appointed on deputation from the
Films Division with effect from 06.08.1983 in the pay scale of Rs.
470–760. Referring to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s
letter F.No. 805/11/2008-F(C) dated 02.02.2010, issued in connection
with O.A. No. 580/2008 filed by the Applicant before this Tribunal,
he submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training had

7 OA/310/01288/2018
agreed to the Applicant’s absorption in the Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC) with effect from 22.12.1994. Accordingly, by
CBFC Order No. C-18/95-Admn. dated 05.03.2010, the Applicant
was regularised in the post of Film Editor with effect from
22.12.1994, while his service from 06.08.1983 to 21.12.1994 was
treated as deputation. Since the Applicant’s absorption was pending
and was formally approved only in 2010, the first financial
upgradation under the ACP Scheme was not granted in 1999.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that, by the time the
Applicant’s absorption was approved in 2010, the ACP Scheme had
been superseded by the MACP Scheme in 2008. Accordingly, in
terms of the applicable MACP provisions, the Applicant was granted
the first and second financial upgradations with effect from
01.09.2008 and the third MACP with effect from 19.10.2011, vide
CBFC order dated 21.04.2015. He contended that the Applicant’s
representation had been duly examined by the Department with
reference to the relevant audit objection, rules and regulations,
following which a reasoned and speaking order dated 16.02.2018 was
issued. According to the Respondents, the Applicant’s contentions
had been duly considered and found to be without merit.

8 OA/310/01288/2018
8. The learned counsel also contended that the Applicant had
himself furnished an undertaking expressing his willingness to be
absorbed in the CBFC despite the post of Film Editor carrying a
lower pay scale. Having accepted the terms of absorption, the
Applicant could not question the same after several years. He further
argued that the Original Application was liable to be dismissed on the
grounds of delay and laches, particularly as the Applicant had
approached this Tribunal after his retirement. Relying on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 565,
the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
9. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and materials made
available on record.
10. The principal question that arises for consideration in the
present Original Application is whether the Applicant’s claim is liable
to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, as contended by the
Respondents.

9 OA/310/01288/2018
11. Upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the Applicant
submitted a representation dated 09.03.2015 and subsequently
approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 26/2018 in 2018. Thus,
there was a delay of approximately three years in approaching this
Tribunal. It is a settled principle of law that repeated representations
or belated representations do not, by themselves, give rise to a fresh
cause of action or extend the period of limitation.
12. In the present case, the Applicant’s grievance relates to the
grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the
earlier ACP Scheme. The MACP Scheme, which came into effect on
01.09.2008, superseded the ACP Scheme and provides for financial
upgradation in accordance with the prescribed conditions. An
employee who has been granted the admissible financial upgradations
under the MACP Scheme cannot ordinarily claim additional financial
benefits under the superseded ACP Scheme, except where such
entitlement is specifically supported by the applicable rules or
transitional provisions. Therefore, the Applicant’s claim requires
consideration in the light of the relevant scheme provisions and the
financial upgradations already granted to him.

10 OA/310/01288/2018
13. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in The Chief Executive
Officer & Others v. S. Lalitha & Others , by order dated 24.04.2025,
reported in 2025 INSC 565 , considered a related issue. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is extracted below for consideration:
“36. On such premise as explained above, the
respondent should have, if she felt aggrieved by the
action of the appellants of granting her benefits of
financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead
of the ACP Scheme, availed the remedy before the
Tribunal immediately after her rights were affected. She
ought not to have waited for so long for ventilating her
grievance through a belated representation. Filing of
such belated representation, which was rejected in no
time, did not have the effect of postponing the cause of
action and stretching the period of limitation so as to
render the O.A. as filed within time.
37. Both fora, i.e., the Tribunal as well as the High
Court, did not rule on the objection of maintainability
of the O.A. despite such objection being sound. The
reasons that we have assigned would lead to the
irresistible conclusion that the O.A. was time-barred
and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal.
The High Court too erred in law by failing to entertain
the challenge to the Tribunal’s order on the specious
ground that the decision in B.D. Kadam reported in
2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4772 covered the issue without,
however, examining whether the O.A. was
maintainable”.

11 OA/310/01288/2018
14. It is also appropriate to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in M. K. Sarkar v. Union of India , reported in 2009
INSC 1288, concerning stale or dead claims. The Hon’ble Apex
Court held, inter alia, that the consideration and rejection of a belated
representation in respect of a stale or dead claim does not give rise to
a fresh cause of action or extend the period of limitation. The
question of delay and laches must be examined with reference to the
original cause of action and not the date of disposal of the belated
representation. The Hon’ble Court further observed that, before
directing consideration of a representation, the Court or Tribunal
must examine whether the claim relates to a live issue or a stale or
dead dispute.
15. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is
evident that the applicant submitted a representation in the year 2015,
after his retirement, seeking the benefit of financial upgradation under
the ACP Scheme. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal
in the year 2018. If the applicant was aggrieved by the grant of
financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme instead of the

12 OA/310/01288/2018
ACP Scheme, he ought to have approached the appropriate forum
within the prescribed period of limitation from the date on which the
alleged cause of action arose. The applicant cannot, by submitting a
belated representation and subsequently approaching this Tribunal
upon its rejection, revive a stale claim or obtain a fresh cause of
action so as to overcome the bar of limitation. The rejection of such a
representation does not extend the period of limitation or cure the
delay and laches attributable to the applicant.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the legal principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion
that the present Original Application is barred by delay and laches
and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
17. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
27 .10.2026
mas

Digitally signed by M A SUNDAR
Date: 2026.11.02 16:12:28
+05'30'
M A SUNDAR